PRIMARY SOURCE · PROCEDURAL ROUTE · EFFECT · LIMIT · IMPLEMENTATION

Insolvency 36/2012 — what the Court ordered and why the route matters

This page does not use “insolvency incident” as shorthand for every important act. It separates definitive-text modification, clarification, liquidation, appeals, qualification proceedings, adjudication, testimonies and true incidents; it then subjects the judge, Insolvency Administration and private actors to adversarial review.

Primary reinspection · 29 August 2026

PRIMARY CORRECTION CLOSED. The creditor-substitution order is dated in its body 8 February 2018. The judge electronically signed on 9 February; the LAJ on 14 February; and the copy visibly bears “NOTIFICADO 15/02/2018”. Therefore 15 February is a notification/custody layer, not the date of the order.

Boundary. We still do not have the certified electronic chronological index / official per-piece export. The incident list on this page is the located primary denominator, not a claim that the judicial docket contains no others.

THE BRIDGE THAT MUST BE PROVED

8 February 2018 → 4 June 2018: €9.052.251,69 versus €13.165.832,36

8 February 2018 · formal modification

Following an IA request and opposition by LPB and Yaiza Town Council, the judge ordered the definitive texts amended to substitute Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. for Promontoria Holding 122 B.V.

Identified specially secured claims: €857,373.81 + €8,194,877.88 = €9,052,251.69, plus contingent enforcement costs without a self-standing fixed amount.

Decisive judicial rule: the assignment changes the holder, not the amount; the amount must remain what was recorded in the definitive texts.

Route: former Ley Concursal Article 97 bis. The order stated a 20-day appeal period.

4 June 2018 · liquidation-plan clarification

LPB asked for the IA first to calculate the updated specially secured claim. Instead, the order relied on two 17-May CAM balance-fixing instruments and stated those amounts should be used without first requiring an IA calculation.

Operative amount: €11,887,314.33 + €1,278,518.03 = €13,165,832.36, plus later default interest within the limit of the respective real security.

The order itself presents the act as a clarification of the 16-April order and says no appeal lies against the clarification under LEC 214.4. It is not verified as an insolvency incident or as a formal order amending the definitive texts.

Declared Gil Marer/Aweswell position. It is categorically disputed that the 4-June clarification was legally capable, by itself, of converting the approximately €9.052m definitive-text amount into an approximately €13m definitive claim or insolvency payoff/set-off amount.

The competing lawful route must also be tested

Former Ley Concursal Article 59 is a serious counterargument: interest on claims secured by real security could continue to the extent covered by that security. The audit therefore must not assume that every difference is necessarily unlawful. It must reconcile, mortgage by mortgage: principal, ordinary interest, default interest, mortgage-liability ceiling, exigibility, calculation date, payment/set-off and — separately — whether the definitive creditor-list amount was formally amended.

Definitive-text gate. Por Derecho will not record a lawful change merely because a different figure appears in a balance certificate, IA calculation, plan/clarification order, deed, testimony or accounting entry. Required: application + legal ground + IA report + transfer/opposition + incident where the applicable route requires it + signed modifying decision + exact before/after entry + notification/remedy/finality + corrected list/inventory or equivalent implementation binding.

CONTROLLED TAXONOMY

Primary insolvency incidents currently located

Piece	Applicant	Against	Object	Located result
0000007/2012 Judgment 1/04/2016	LPB	Garrigues Abogados y Asesores Tributarios	Pz Incidente concursal impugnación inventario/lista de acreedores (Art 96.4). LPB sought exclusion of Garrigues ordinary/subordinated claims.	Dismissed; no costs because the judgment recorded legal/factual doubts.
0000008/2012 Judgment 24/11/2015	Insolvency Administration	LPB + Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.	Pz Incidente concursal Resolución contrato por incumplimiento (Art 62 LC). Lease termination for non-payment, vacating and rent claim.	Granted; €2,733,923.64 plus interest/future rent and costs, according to the located judgment.

Owners’ Community: important, but the label is not forced

The primary order currently controlled is the 20 January 2017 definitive-text modification under Article 97 bis: LPB sought correction/objected, the IA reported favourably, the report was transferred and the located order records no opposition; the judge expressly amended the treatment of the Community's contingent ordinary pre-insolvency fee credit. This is an important comparator because it shows a formal modification route. We do not relabel it an “insolvency incident” without a separate primary incidental piece, claim/admission and decision proving that route.

Why the other material acts are not automatically put in the incident list

Former Article 192 LC made the incident a residual channel for questions for which the Ley Concursal prescribed no other procedure. Thus: 4 June is clarification/plan; plan approval is liquidation; reposición/appeal/nullity are remedies; qualification has its own statutory section; ordinary filings and IA reports are section acts; the 2021–22 improvement/adjudication chain is realisation/implementation; testimonies are certification/finality; later clarifications follow their own route. Excluding them from the incident list does not reduce their criminal, evidentiary or causal importance.

INVENTORY PARTIAL · DENOMINATOR CONTROL

What controls this reading — and what is still missing

This is not a complete court file or certified whole court file. The working public catalogue remains concurso36-complete-record-v1.json: 127 located canonical records, not the Court's official denominator. The current date correction and taxonomy are additionally controlled by concurso36-what-court-ordered-v2.json.

The creditor-substitution copy still has a 15 Feb 2018 notification layer; that is not the date of the order, which is 8 February.

Supplemental record C36-SUP-ACSEC-2018-02-27 preserves the IA/Community security request of 27 February 2018 as a party communication, not a judicial order. The controlled publication includes 2018-02-27-ac-community-security-request-redacted-searchable.pdf and the English transcript transcript.en.md. This source does not by itself authorise possession, exclusion of owners or general control of the hotel.

PERMANENT GOVERNANCE

Black-letter law + adversarial review of judge, IA and private perimeter

Declared position / evidentiary limit. Gil Marer/Aweswell alleges multiple potentially unlawful acts and omissions by the insolvency judge across the proceeding — not one isolated incident and not only the 4-June order — including lack of neutrality, asymmetric treatment, possible institutional shielding/neutralisation and potential judicial prevaricación. Complaint/communication history also exists before the CGPJ and other routes. That history is linked as allegation context; it does not itself prove guilt.

1. Dry law

First identify the exact legal route, jurisdiction, prerequisites, contradiction, remedies, limits and effect of the act.

2. Adversarial lens

Then test: knowledge, route substitution, consistency with prior decisions, selection of evidence/calculations, equality of arms, loss of review, beneficiary/harm, estate/third-party protection, causation, repetition, competing lawful explanation and subjective element.

A prevaricación hypothesis requires far more than an adverse or erroneous decision: the analysis must address the alleged injustice of the resolution and the knowledge required by the criminal offence. The chronology must also preserve protective/corrective decisions that may weaken that hypothesis.

Agent governance / prompt →Primary control v2 →7 June / continuity chain →

Truth questions still open

Where is the formal chain that, if it existed, changed the definitive-text amount after 8 February?
How exactly is €13,165,832.36 derived under Article 59, mortgage by mortgage and within each security ceiling?
Did the 4-June clarification remain within LEC 214/LOPJ 267 or introduce an essential element requiring another route?
What actual effect did the approximately €13m threshold have on funded exits, rival bidding, the estate and insolvency exit?
What did the judge and IA know at each date and what measures did they adopt or refuse?
How do these decisions fit into the cumulative allegation already pursued through supervisory/investigative routes, including the CGPJ history?